Beginning to Dig Deeper: Answering Ten Questions From a Protestant Inquirer
1. Who has the right Canon?
The Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox cannot agree between each other as to what the right Canon of Scripture is. They each boast exclusively that their own “magisterial authorities” settle the issue “infallibly.” The Confessional Protestant Reformation, however, received the Canon of Scripture from their Western Catholic forebearers according to the method of the early, Patristic Church. This method of identifying and receiving the Apostolic Canon is fairly accurately described as “Historical-Critical Receptionism.” That is to say, they thoughtfully and with a discerning eye received the reliable testimony of the Fathers regarding the canonicity of the books of Scripture. This resulted in a conservative canon list of 66 books of the Bible, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament.
Moreover, the early Church made the distinction between the primary canon and other, “useful” books. These additional books comprised a second category and were called by the early Church according to different names. They were sometimes called the Apocrypha, sometimes called the Deuterocanon, and sometimes simply Ecclesiastical Books. These books were not “rejected” by the Confessional Protestant Reformers, though they were definitely not included in the list of the Canon of Scripture properly so called. They were considered acceptable to read, even helpful insofar as they are human writings, but not suitable for establishing Christian doctrine. The reasons for not including them in the proper Canon, however, were multiple. These reasons included, as the early Church also noted, that these books had not received the universal testimony of the early Church, their authors were not certainly known, and (in the case of pre-Christian books and histories) they were not written in Hebrew. A third category of books was that of those which were definitely rejected as totally false, which included such works as the “Gnostic Gospels,” which were known to be fraudulent.
2. What authority does the Church have?
In itself, of itself, and from itself, the Church has no authority. God’s Word, however, assigns and imparts authority to certain vocations within the Church. Thus the Church has a kind of derivative, subordinate, dependent, secondary authority. Because Scripture is God’s Word (as confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, for example, when it affirms we believe in the Holy Spirit “who spoke by the prophets”), it therefore cannot be divided from God. Thus we call Scripture God’s living Word, His living, inscripturated Speaking. Now, in principle, as a theological truth, no Word can be of equal authority to God’s own Word, and no other word can of itself be infallible except God’s. That being said, God’s Word assigns and imparts authority, for example, to pastors and teachers in the Church. This means that they have the authority that God’s Word assigns to them, which is in principle always secondary to and dependent upon God’s Word as primary, and yet it is a real authority in and for the Church. We also note, however, that the Church “as a whole” is not assigned authority, say, as any kind of “voting body of believers.” Another example of secondary authority would be that of deacons, or what is called “the diaconate.” These have Biblical authority in and for their diaconal tasks. Those two categories being established, a third, even more contingent category of authority can also be identified, because within the Church various needs and tasks arise which are assigned to people by those who have proper Biblical authority, which thus creates a kind of tertiary authority. This includes such things as those who are assigned the task of, say, caring for Church properties or acting as a treasurer for things like gifts and tithes. There is a kind of freedom in the creation and dissolution of such tasks as pastoral prudence and/or situational needs may warrant, all under the aegis of holy Scripture. In other words, whereas the Church absolutely requires pastors and teachers as per Biblical mandate, it is not Biblically necessary to have a designated property manager, even though it may in a sense be “practically necessary” to have one.
3. What does apostolic succession look like for Protestants?
Apostolic Succession, in Apostolic times, simply referred to the organic succession of properly ordained pastors in the Church. The terms presbyter and episcopos (bishop) were interchangeable and considered synonymous. Later, however, and after the Apostles, the terms presbyter and episcopos came to be distinguished from each other. The episcopos came to be considered the higher authority, but initially this authority was one of practicality, and so their greater authority was considered as that of “first among equals,” not “first over others.”
As time went on, however, the episcopos came to be considered “first over others” as a third tier of leadership, over the deacon and now also over the presbyter. But, in reality, and according to the Apostolic mind, presbyter and episcopos are in reality a single institution, and so Apostolic Succession flows through the presbyterial line just as well as from an episcopal line. For the principle of this aspect of Apostolic Succession is that a man doesn’t ordain himself to presbyterial leadership in the Church. In the Confessional Protestant world, this principle is maintained unbroken back to the Medieval and Patristic eras. For example, Martin Luther didn’t ordain himself, and those whom he ordained were not ordained alone by him but together with others who were also ordained by others who were themselves ordained, all maintaining proper Biblical decorum, all the way back to the Apostles.
It ought not go without being said, however, that such organic succession of leadership is not enough to guarantee the fulness of Apostolic Succession, which also includes and more primarily the continuity of Apostolic doctrine, especially that of the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, and the Atonement, i.e. that we are justified in Christ alone, by grace alone, through (living) faith alone.
4. We believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Is it the only infallible authority? Is tradition infallible?
Yes, Scripture is in principle the only infallible authority, error free, and no promise of Scripture holds that the Church will never fall victim to error (heresies), but that she must be ever on guard against them because they represent a real threat to her life. Even a cursory look at history shows that very many times the Church has for periods of time failed to resist heresy, whether for shorter or longer periods, and sometimes for extended periods, and yet we see God’s promise to preserve and sustain the Church (Matthew 16:18) also being maintained. God’s promise that the Church would not fail says nothing about whether or not she will enter into periods of lesser doctrinal purity or corruption of praxis (practice), but that the fundamental confession that creates and sustains the life of the Church will not fail to be on the earth, for the gates of hell (death) will not overcome the Church. Error therefore will always be present in the Church in some form, and it will always be resisted and uprooted like weeds - even if such removal takes longer than it otherwise ought. Therefore speaking of the Church, although it has real authority, albeit secondary, its derived authority is not thereby infallible in the sense of never falling victim to error in either doctrine or practice. Yet it always may repent of its error and return to orthodoxy (right doctrine) and orthopraxy (right practice). This happened famously in the time of Athanasius, the time of the Council of Chalcedon, the time of Maximus the Confessor, the time of Martin Luther, and countless other times.
Tradition is therefore fallible and not infallible. The term “tradition,” however, has multiple senses and multiple uses. Traditions must be “normed” to Scripture, which is itself “the norming norm,” where tradition thus becomes “the normed norm.” By tradition we thus understand things like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, which function as a “rule of faith,” the regula fide, or the analogy of faith (cf. Romans 12:6), thus becoming guides for how we read the Bible (hermeneutics) and live/practice our faith. As a Confessional Lutheran, I also affirm the Lutheran Book of Concord as the true exposition of holy Scripture, that it is normed by Scripture and normed to Scripture. Tradition, however, includes not only doctrine but also certain universal practices, or at least approaches to them, especially things like the order of the Church’s worship, what in the Lutheran tradition we call the Divine Service. Since the pastors and teachers of the Church have real, albeit secondary, authority, it is helpful to note that that authority doesn’t only mean today’s pastors and teachers. This is where the secondary, even “binding” authority of tradition actually comes from, and the nature, function, and limits of our given responsibility towards the past, not merely as honor but also as obligation. The Church cannot differ willy nilly from what was laid down by the rightful pastors and teachers of the Church’s living past. This is also at the root of the principle of catholicity in the Church, which is to say the universality of Christian faith and practice. We are not simply the Church of the here and now, but the Church of all times and places, even if the working out of that principle is messy and not entirely uniform (which is actually a providential thing as much as it can be a challenging thing).
5. What role should tradition and liturgy hold in our beliefs and in our day-to-day life?
Tradition is a source of stability for Christian identity and formation. It is a repository of wisdom, a gift of God to His people as an ongoing source of theological reflection and devotional inspiration. For example, one tradition is that of a “daily prayer rule.” This means a daily ritual of praying in the morning and in the evening, whether with the family, a friend, or alone. There have been innumerable variations to daily prayer rules, and so becoming aware of how Christians of the past and present have structured theirs can help to enrich one’s own devotional life and spiritual “discipline.”
Such “use” of tradition enables a person faithfully (not blindly) to surrender, to submit to wisdom from outside one’s own ego and imagination. Otherwise, a person is constantly thrown back onto themselves where they answer such questions in virtual isolation, or with only the smallest fraction of input from others who may themselves have very little knowledge or experience of such things. Thus the person runs the risk of never escaping the orbit of personal opinion, reinforcing an unchurchly pride of self-direction in matters that are truly deep waters. There is no such thing as a lone ranger Christian, and so tradition is that matrix in which we encounter and integrate the theological and practical wisdom given to and transmitted in continuity within the Body of Christ.
Liturgy, for its part, speaks especially to the stable structures which help to form Christian character, deepen Christian reflection, and stabilize meditation upon the truths of the Faith. As these liturgical structures and practices work on a person over time, they ever function to become more deeply ingrained within the soul, writing Christian truth ever more deeply into the human heart. This becomes a source of supreme comfort, especially when in weakened states of health, because the thoughtful and non-vain repetition one has engaged in makes such truths more easily available to the memory. Liturgy thus helps to form and deepen the mind and heart according to the contours of Christian faith.
6. What are the sacraments?
The Lutheran Book of Concord, which collects her confessions of Christian faith, defines a sacrament this way, as “rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.” Considered strictly, these are two in number: Holy Baptism and holy Communion. We also quote St. Augustine on the matter, who calls Sacraments “a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both [Word and Sacrament] is the same.”
7. What role does baptism play in salvation?
Firstly, from our Small Catechism, we would say it this way, that “Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.” And so whatever role holy Baptism plays, whatever things it accomplishes, we would be sure to specify, again from our Small Catechism, that “it is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost.”
Secondly, with the foregoing established, we would simply reiterate Scripture, that Baptism is something commanded: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19); that it is saving, or in the words of our Small Catechism, “It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare,” as evidenced by Mark’s Gospel, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16); that it is a washing of regeneration, as the Apostle Paul teaches about God our Savior, that he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5); and that it unites us to Christ in His death and resurrection and so calls and enables us to walk in newness of life, as We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).
Thirdly, concerning Baptismal Regeneration, it is also worth noting that we do not believe Baptism is a human work, but that because Baptism is a Word of God, it is therefore a work of God. Thus to affirm Baptismal Regeneration is simply to affirm that man is regenerated by God’s Word working by His Holy Spirit according to His Promise. It really does the things holy Scripture says of it, that it forgives, saves, bestows the Holy Spirit, regenerates, and unites us to Christ. In the immortal words of the Apostle Peter, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
8. What does original sin/sin nature look like?
Original sin refers to the inborn tendency we have to live for ourselves, from ourselves, and towards ourselves. In Lutheran tradition we call this the incurvatus in se, being turned in towards ourselves as a way of being, i.e. self-centered, in self-referentialism, to seek ourselves in, through, and above all things. It is our inborn inclination to not fear, love, or trust in God above all things, or to love others truly as ourselves. As a consequence, the idea of original sin also means that such fear, love, and trust is not produced in us through a mere matter of training, but that we must be united with Christ in His death and resurrection, that we must be born again according to the new man, made a new creation, by faith alone. Original sin thus remains in Christians, not in its guilt, but in our flesh as a kind of spiritual disease as it lives at war with the indwelling Spirit of God. As St. Paul writes to the Galatians, For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do (Galatians 5:17). This evil desire is also known as concupiscence. Thus from original sin arises all of our pride, selfish desires, angers, worldly fears, discontent, and so on, which is to say all that is in us which refuses to truly fear, love, and trust in God with all of heart, soul, mind, and strength, or love our neighbor as ourselves.
9. What does atonement look like? (Penal substitution atonement is the primary theory we’ve been taught.)
The Atonement is multi-faceted. It certainly includes that Christ paid the penalty for sin, which is suffering (i.e. His Passion) and death, that He was counted a sinner and made a curse even though He was completely sinless, utterly righteous, and perfectly blessed (i.e. the Christ, the Anointed One), so that He could receive and carry away the burden, the weight of our sin, having had them imputed to and so placed upon Him, thus cleansing our sin through His holy sacrifice of Himself to the Father. This propitiated (turned away) the divine wrath towards sin, satisfying the justice of God, which is a very Patristic concept as well as a Scriptural one. Our sin having been imputed to Him establishes the basis of the wonderful exchange, that is, His righteousness being imputed to us.
Now, all of this is predicated on the fact that Christ was Incarnate, which is to say He was fully God and fully man, such that it is entirely proper to say that the Incarnation was an essential aspect of the Atonement, enabling Him to identify with our humanity in the depths of His own divine-human heart, and therein actually suffer what was proper to fallen human nature, i.e. hunger, thirst, fatigue, and even alienation from God the Father, as when Christ cried out on the Cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” This is not an ontological alienation, and therefore doesn’t allow for any kind of cleavage between the Persons of the Godhead, but is rather a “relation of alienation,” which is to say the maximum amount of misery due to the human refusal to fear, love, and trust in God above all things. And so, just as Christ God as man was able to suffer not only such things as hunger, thirst, fatigue, the betrayal of man, and alienation from mankind, He was also able to suffer death, even though He is Himself Life, and alienation from His Father, even though He is Himself Love.
It is a profound mystery that runs from one end of infinity to another, having passed through time and space by means of the Lord’s Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Thus Christ’s active life of obedience, as well as His passive life of obedience, all operated together in His unified atoning work. Moreover, Christ, in dying and rising, conquered death (Christus Victor), death being the final enemy, which is also an essential aspect of His atoning work, not forgetting His Ascension and Sitting at the right hand of the Father. And none of this happens but that Christ in saving us also unites us to these atoning actions of His, for in uniting Himself to us in the incarnation, and so to our sinful condition (though without sin), He thus unites us to Himself in His life and its righteousness (though we have none of our own), and so His being crucified is made over into our being crucified, His being buried into our being buried, His being risen our being risen, and His being seated at the right hand of the Father also our being seated at the right hand of the Father. And yet, in an even more simple sense, Christ Himself is our Atonement, for His Person and His Work are a unity, for because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).
10. What are we supposed to make of early church writings?
We are to read early Church writings according to the holy Scriptures and the rule of faith, the regula fide, the Word of God being their norming norm, their hermeneutic standard. These early Church writings are a rich and irreplaceable gift to the Church, helping us more deeply to understand the faith, and more fully and capably to resist errors and distortions of it.
Comments
Post a Comment